Cargando…

Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study

BACKGROUND: Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Her...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kettis, Åsa, Fagerlind, Hanna, Frödin, Jan-Erik, Glimelius, Bengt, Ring, Lena
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer International Publishing 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34259966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00315-z
_version_ 1783722610358484992
author Kettis, Åsa
Fagerlind, Hanna
Frödin, Jan-Erik
Glimelius, Bengt
Ring, Lena
author_facet Kettis, Åsa
Fagerlind, Hanna
Frödin, Jan-Erik
Glimelius, Bengt
Ring, Lena
author_sort Kettis, Åsa
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice. METHODS: In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3–5 consultations over a period of 4–6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients’ health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients’ satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8280256
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Springer International Publishing
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-82802562021-07-20 Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study Kettis, Åsa Fagerlind, Hanna Frödin, Jan-Erik Glimelius, Bengt Ring, Lena J Patient Rep Outcomes Research BACKGROUND: Effective patient-physician communication can improve patient understanding, agreement on treatment and adherence. This may, in turn, impact on clinical outcomes and patient quality of life (QoL). One way to improve communication is by using patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs). Heretofore, studies of the impact of using PROMs in clinical practice have mostly evaluated the use of standardized PROMs. However, there is reason to believe that individualized instruments may be more appropriate for this purpose. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of the standardized QoL-instrument, the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life C-30 (EORTC-QOL-C30) and the individualized QoL instrument, the Schedule for the Evaluation of Individual Quality of Life-Direct Weighting (SEIQoL-DW), in clinical practice. METHODS: In a prospective, open-label, controlled intervention study at two hospital out-patient clinics, 390 patients with gastrointestinal cancer were randomly assigned either to complete the EORTC-QOL-C30 or the SEIQoL-DW immediately before the consultation, with their responses being shared with their physician. This was repeated in 3–5 consultations over a period of 4–6 months. The primary outcome measure was patients’ health-related QoL, as measured by FACIT-G. Patients’ satisfaction with the consultation and survival were secondary outcomes. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups with regard to study outcomes. Neither intervention instrument resulted in any significant changes in health-related QoL, or in any of the secondary outcomes, over time. This may reflect either a genuine lack of effect or sub-optimization of the intervention. Since there was no comparison to standard care an effect in terms of lack of deterioration over time cannot be excluded. CONCLUSIONS: Future studies should focus on the implementation process, including the training of physicians to use the instruments and their motivation for doing so. The effects of situational use of standardized or individualized instruments should also be explored. The effectiveness of the different approaches may depend on contextual factors including physician and patient preferences. Springer International Publishing 2021-07-14 /pmc/articles/PMC8280256/ /pubmed/34259966 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00315-z Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Research
Kettis, Åsa
Fagerlind, Hanna
Frödin, Jan-Erik
Glimelius, Bengt
Ring, Lena
Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title_full Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title_fullStr Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title_full_unstemmed Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title_short Quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the EORTC-QLQ-C30 or the SEIOQL-DW: a randomized study
title_sort quality of life assessments in clinical practice using either the eortc-qlq-c30 or the seioql-dw: a randomized study
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8280256/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34259966
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41687-021-00315-z
work_keys_str_mv AT kettisasa qualityoflifeassessmentsinclinicalpracticeusingeithertheeortcqlqc30ortheseioqldwarandomizedstudy
AT fagerlindhanna qualityoflifeassessmentsinclinicalpracticeusingeithertheeortcqlqc30ortheseioqldwarandomizedstudy
AT frodinjanerik qualityoflifeassessmentsinclinicalpracticeusingeithertheeortcqlqc30ortheseioqldwarandomizedstudy
AT glimeliusbengt qualityoflifeassessmentsinclinicalpracticeusingeithertheeortcqlqc30ortheseioqldwarandomizedstudy
AT ringlena qualityoflifeassessmentsinclinicalpracticeusingeithertheeortcqlqc30ortheseioqldwarandomizedstudy